look we have water all round this little island,its never going to go away why arnt we building barriers across the severn or the one they want to build in Swansea bay .the point being the water will allways be there the wind will not

Renewable energy sources are projected to account for more than one quarter of global electricity production by 2020.Here is the top five renewable energy sources based on global installed power generation capacities as of 2013.

This is a very poorly written and researched article - where are the facts and figures to support your claims M.J.? "Wind turbines, for example, spin only about a third of the time" - that was true maybe 10 years ago. Nuclear "still looks less expensive than many types of renewable generation" according to whom and under what metric? Why not compare the amount of capacity of nuclear installed in the past 5 years to the amount of capacity renewables installed to see if your claim holds true to what the market has shown?

The obvious rebuttal is actually why are fossil fuels so cheap? The answer being, of course, that pollution/externalities haven’t been traditionally or correctly priced to reflect the damage caused.

It's sad to see such a lack of attention to economics in this piece for a paper called “The Economist.” This is just bad reporting.

In about 20 years time the argument that renewable energy is expensive will be null and void. Technological advances (graphene, for example) will make it economical beyond our wildest dreams. But...

Now isn't the time to be rolling out more turbines and solar panels. It's a monstrous scam that has unintended negative consequences - that TE eludes to outsourcing emissions because of reducing the competitiveness of UK/European industry is very true (I feel).

And, lastly, if we all assume that mankind is contributing to global warming, would we be happier if the Earth was actually cooling. And, if not, what should the ideal median temperature be?

Graphene? What is the connection between graphene and solar energy. The only application I have heard of is as a replacement of the conductor grid on the solar panels. Apparently the vision is that graphene would increase the effective area of the panel, giving a few percent improvement in efficiency.

This is marginally true except that the oil cartel feels a pinch when diesel powered naval vessels are replaced with nuclear powered or when electricity driven vehicles are mass-produced displacing the traditional gas engines. Of course, electric-driven locomotives, street cars and subway trains have been in use world-wide for many decades. Granted, substitution of diesel fuel with other energy sources is a gradual process but it's a fact of life.

Of course it does. In small-scale generators, for instance. And in the longer run, the development of solar is a huge strategic threat to the oil industry, if only because it also sells gas. Which, although it can be used to even out the fluctuations in solar and wind output, is also in direct competition with those sources.

Less than 1% of our electricity is generated by oil. The gas industry, oil or not, does compete directly with solar energy. The sudden discovery that fracking is a major contributor to the development of natural gas reserves in the US is seen by solar energy promoters as a major threat to the environment. The use of fracking in the oil industry went unnoticed for forty years - it was not competitive with solar and wind, therefore not an environmental concern.

If you can provide a source more reliable than Greenpeace that could explicitly document who gives what to whom, I could take the assertion more seriously. But, like you, I don't put much faith in charges or claims made by biased sources.

The article does not deal with solar energy anyway - Exxon is in the solar energy business. And it would appear from the chart that there role in funding "denialists" is diminishing. Their investments in alternative energy is a multiple of the numbers shown on the Greenpeace chart. To a company like Exxon, alternative energy is a hedge and has nothing to do with global warming.

Exxon as a solar energy company? That might be hedge or window-dressing, but their interest in that is minute compared to good (or bad) old fossil fuel.

And have they stopped supporting climate denialism, or simply made better use of anonymous donations such as 'Donors Trust'? Where do you think such trusts get their funds? You can bet that ALL of it is from one or other vested commercial interest, on an implicit or explicit quid pro quo basis.

No, Exxon is not a solar energy company. They are an ekergy company that invests in solar energy and other forms of alternative energy as a hedge against depletion of oil. They have no particular interest in opposing solar energy.

You can make up any story you want to support your argument in the absence of information.

The bottom line SS is that you have produced NO evidence that Exxon promotes opposition to solar energy, nor has any reason to oppose it. It is ALL conjecture.

Greenpeace used tax records to show the money flows, and that is far from the only evidence of fossil fuel companies selling spin on climate change. Haven't you read 'The Merchants of Doubt'?

Anyone who values democracy must have grave reservations with the whole phenomenon of anonymous donations. I hope you can agree that donations and other lobbying efforts should be open to scrutiny, be they from unions or corporations?

So there are tax records that tell us how corporation donate money to causes? So, where are the tax records that show us what Exxon donated elsewhere?

Whenever you refer to data that you cannot produce, I get the feeling you can't produce it for a reason, such as you made it up.

That view applies specifically to your unsubstantiated claims that Exxon is behind some plot to hold back solar energy. Where is there any evidence? Where is there any consequence?

This is just another lame excuse for the mediocre record for solar energy's capability to produce electricity (0.2% of our electricity in 2013), despite billions of dollars of government support per year for 50 years.

Yes, I know this must be difficult to believe for someone as wedded to fossil fuels as you are, Rob.

I did give you the evidence: Read the Guardian article, and the Greenpeace report, and 'The Merchant of Doubt'. They contain ample evidence that fossil fuel companies finance climate change denial, despite the fact that anonymous donations are designed to obfuscate this proof.

Against those billions in government support of renewables are trillions for fossil fuels, by the way, so let's not pretend the playing field was tilted in favor of solar.

I refer to the opening two sentences - "Most people agree that carbon emissions from power stations are a significant cause of climate change. These days a fiercer argument is over what to do about it."

A simple order of magnitude calculation, to determine the impact of carbon dioxide emissions from human activity on the greenhouse effect, paints a different picture. Consider the following:

Fact #1: Scientists attribute approximately 95% of the atmospheric greenhouse heat effect to water vapour.

Fact #2: The remaining 5% (100% - 95%) of the atmospheric greenhouse heat effect is attributed to the greenhouse trace gases, of which about 72% represents carbon dioxide.

Fact #4: The IPCC's 2007 assessment report asserted that 97% of all carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year is from natural sources and only 3% is from human activity.

Fact #5: About 0.11 of 1% (3% x 3.6%) of the atmospheric greenhouse heat effect can therefore be attributed to carbon dioxide emitted from human activity.

Now ask yourself this. Is mankind's contribution of 0.11 of 1% of the atmospheric greenhouse heat effect a genuine scientific concern or is it just absurd propaganda devised by politicians and activists who have, for many years, been desperately striving for international controls over fossil fuel energy?

How can the human contribution of 0.11 of 1% of the total atmospheric greenhouse heat effect be a significant cause of climate change, or global warming? Simply impossible!

Also, it is good to be reminded that the empirical evidence demonstrates atmospheric temperature movements always precede atmospheric carbon dioxide movements and not the other way round. In other words temperature drives carbon dioxide and not the other way round.

There may be some flaws in the reasoning presented in the argument presented by Mervyn. But you won't find them in the personal attack posted by SS. Appeals to authority and ad hominem arguments are not adequate responses to an argument.

The reality, as SS fully knows, is that CO2 does not account for the majority of the warming trends we have seen. Global warming scientists have acknowledged this and hypothesized that the majority of the warming must be due to an amplification of the CO2 effect, most likely associated with water vapor.

The credibility of a source of information is very, very important. I, for one, cannot verify all information I receive and so it makes a world of difference if, for example, an anonymous commenter claims something, or the majority of representative scientific bodies in the world. Would you judge the health advice from your local shopkeeper as equal to that of your doctor? Or is that 'appeal to authority' and therefore to be rejected?
.
Pointing out that anonymous commenters here may have a conflict of interest does not a personal attack make.
.
And if the increase in water vapor is the direct effect of the rise in CO2 (via increased temperature), in my mind that increase in CO2 still accounts for the whole effect including the portion via vapor. CO2 is 'forcing' the climate while vapor is simply a mechanism. As you well know, Rob.
.
As to Mervyn's claims: he doesn't back them up with verifiable sources, some of his 'facts' are in error, and as a whole, his reasoning is flawed.
.
Just start with #1: "Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds" (Wikipedia). Not 95%. Fact #5 is a fallacy. If human emissions are 3%, and natural uptake can't accommodate those 3%, CO2 levels rise like water in a bath tub. So more than that 0.11% of the greenhouse effect may be attributable to human-emitted CO2, and this is perfectly compatible with most of the increase in temperature being due to such emissions.
.
But I suspect that you know all this, Rob. Why do you defend the indefensible?

To give renewable producers "time to bring costs under control" is partly counter-productive. Only with steady consumption, by governments and through subsidies, will the cost be brought down at the needed rate.

Costs are brought down by consumption, competition and money directed into research, not automatically.

Nobody has made this argument about any other SUCCESSFUL technology that I am familiar with. Integrated circuits came to the marketplace about the same time solar panels did. Like solar panels, the first customers were the military. The IC business quickly moved out of the military business and expanded, using privately invested capital. Fifty years later nobody argues that the IC business needs help from the government to finally become a self-supporting technology.
Yet, here we are still attempting to commercialize a technology that is virtually identical to the first solar panels on the marketplace 50 years ago and with no significant technological improvements for the last 30 years.
Another counter-example is image sensor technology. The first CCD image sensor was developed privately in 1970, after the same organization developed the solar panel. The technology filled a narrow niche for astronomy and spy satellites for years, until a privately initiated push moved it into the consumer market. There was NO government support provided for this expansion. Today digital sensors dominate the imaging market.
Now, Marcus, if you want to discuss unsuccessful technologies, you can find many examples of overextended government funding and lost careers. An example is GaAS, the "IC technology of the future - and always will be".

That is a very good point and I would concede your argument. I would add with the reservation however that the threat of climate change, like no other before, requires highly urgent action. This sets it apart from integrated circuits and much other technology.

The fundamental problem with tackling climate change is that its demand (at least to a large part) does not come from commercial or economic gain, but political will and ethical considerations. It is a distant compound effect that will affect future generations and poorer, developing countries. As such, it gives rise to several prime examples of market externalities, which cannot be promoted through a completely free market and require government intervention.

Solar energy will have little or no impact on climate change. Solar energy promoters use climate change as an excuse to promote their favorite technology.

Are you really concerned with climate change?? Encourage conversion to natural gas and nuclear power and promote energy conservation. The US has seen a significant drop in CO2 emissions through the effect of conservation and NG replacement of coal.

Sweden, with its hydro and forests can follow a different path. But solar there is nothing more than an expensive toy.

James Hansen simply thinks all registers have to be opened to reduce emissions, including nuclear. From what I read, I don't think he's against solar.

He is against a switch to gas, which you are continuously promoting.

And besides, this report comes to us via Penn Energy, published by a company that was originally called the Petroleum Publishing Company. A good degree of bias and selective reporting is likely, in my view.

Hansen's comments include statements opposing the implementation of solar energy. The have been published widely - to the consternation of the orthodox.

"Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." http://www.masterresource.org/2011/08/james-hansen-renewable-energy/#sth...

That is not a statement "opposing the implementation of solar energy", Rob. It just points out that renewables have limitations in terms of capacity in countries with limited opportunity for hydro, wind or solar, relative to population and energy needs.

Besides, he could have added Australia to the list of countries that can shift to renewables within decades (http://bze.org.au/zero-carbon-australia-2020). And given that it typically takes many years to build a nuclear plant, let alone one of which the design is yet to be complete, I wonder how rapid the transition to nuclear would be.

Hansen sees the dire urgency of change, and will be happy with any non-carbon source of energy. But you have to remember that he's a climate scientist. Not an energy-technology specialist.

You will have noted that Hansen's solution is not so much nuclear, but a carbon tax; one that is substantial, rising over time, and of which the proceeds are given back to the taxpayers.

"As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned. But fossil fuels are cheap only because they do not pay their costs to society. Costs include direct and indirect subsidies, human health costs
from air and water pollution, and climate change
impacts on current and future generations. The public can appreciate that a rising price must be
placed on fossil fuel emissions, if we are to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels.

A carbon fee must be placed across the board on all fossil fuels in proportion to carbon emissions. The fee should be collected from fossil fuel companies at the first domestic sale (at domestic mine or port of entry)."

"The money collected from fossil fuel companies should be distributed electronically each month to bank accounts or debit cards of all legal residents. My suggestion is that each legal adult resident get an equal share, with families getting an added half share per child up to a maximum of two such half shares per family."

Let me try to redirect you to the point of this discussion. It was not about denialists of climate change. It is about the waste of effort we devote to solar energy. Whether oil companies fund denialists or not is an irrelevant red herring. Hansen is very clear on his views on the subject of solar energy - it is a niche solution. He did not include Australia in his exceptions because they are a large economy with large energy needs. Only believers in the Easter Bunny would believe otherwise. And he certainly excluded the US, Europe, China and India from those who might benefit from renewable energy in the foreseeable future. His comments about "Big Oil" were ironic, in that he argued they PROMOTED renewable energy because they realized they are NO THREAT to their business.

I happen to agree that implementation of nuclear energy has many barriers, and that NG offers a short term approach to quickly reducing CO2 emission (and other pollution) by a significant amount. Think of the impact we could have on CO2 emission if we followed Hansen's advice, but applied it to collaboration on NG exploration in India and China as well as nuclear power. If you (and Hansen) are truly concerned about increasing CO2 emission it is impossible to ignore that opportunity.

I personally do not believe we need a carbon tax to implement these changes - the advantages of NG over coal are already apparent and the conversion can be made with a relatively small amount of funding. However, conversion to nuclear power will be more expensive and may need more encouragement. Hansen also passes over a discussion of longer term problems and the funding of R&D to derive long term solutions.

Solar energy has the potential to be much more than a niche solution. It's already cost-effective in many parts of the world, and since costs of PV are coming down while those of fossil fuels are trending up, solar will have its place in our energy supply. And as I pointed out, there are realistic plans to get Australia in carbon neutral mode, without the use of nuclear. Plenty of space and sun here.

'Natural' gas is, in my opinion, a dead end solution. Better than coal (unless methane leakage turns out more substantial than the industry admits - which is hard to judge, in the absence of industry cooperation with proper measurements), so if the conversion of existing plants is easily made, it should be considered.

However if large infrastructural investments are needed, they are probably better targeted at renewables, in most countries, certainly including Australia.

And I personally do believe - with Hansen - that a substantial price on carbon emissions is needed to achieve the CO2 reductions we need. Revenue neutral would be fine - just the price will influence investment decisions, including those in R&D.

First, it is ironic that he writes about fossil fuel industry lobbying as a red herring, yet it is that same lobbying that helps blocking his favorite solution: a price on carbon emissions.

Second, his aim was to convince conservative readers, which is arguably much more useful than trying to convince greenies like me. So he distanced himself from renewables, even as he was installing them on his own roof and in his floors. And he pointed to the potential of nuclear, which for some counterintuitive reason apeals to many conservatives. And he proposes to not bloat government coffers with the carbon fee (which is therefore not a really tax, one could argue).

I wish him every luck, but obviously wouldn't endorse all he says on this topic. I give him more credibility on climate change itself, and he's not at all reassuring on that point.

An article not worthy of our time spent to read it and completely unworthy of The Economist.
As they say a kingdom was lost for want of a nail.
A well built reputation lost for want of a little research. Pity!

Facts are wind for instance was near perfected in the 30's for homes, farms until subsidized utility power ran them out of business.

The problems you mention on RE are for utility size RE in concentrated areas which causes the problems of variability. Plus Big ones cost more and need expensive transmission lines. And they only make wholesale prices.

As small home, building, local units well spread out of wind, solar, biomass, cogen, etc they average out making steady power just slowing going up and down.

Also these make retail electric cost so get 3-10x's as much income/savings for the owner, making them even more cost effective to the consumer/owner.

Solar/wind has been cited with eff to the lower US EIA utility output report as the reason it has dropped the last 3 yrs and solar has cut peak demand by 3 percent, the most valuable power.

Since now with PV and soon with wind, solar CSP, biomass/ cogen and waste derived drop in motor fuels are all simple low cost 1-4kw machines that just need mass production and in home, building sizes is the lowest cost energy source.

RE 'problems' have easy solutions and once well spread around to average out even the big ones become steady.

But hydro, solar, solar CSP, biomass, tidal and some wind like the US east coast happens when needed most, on demand or steady thus makes a grid more stable, not less.

And if a grid had no RE it would still have to have the same or more back up. Facts are every power source on the grid backs up all others.

And a 1Gw nuke scam in a few seconds is far worse that a few MW's of RE varying is a rounding error.

So many can say what they want but RE done well is easily the low cost power for most.

And since we have under 30 yrs of FF's left because of the five billion new consumers getting educated, it will go fast, so we better get the replacements going now.

I will only offer one correction, jerryd, because your misunderstanding of this issue is a common yet dangerous one. Addition of intermittent power sources to a large grid can and has introduced serious instabilities in the grid. Scientists who work in the field of power engineering are quite familiar with this issue and the DOE provides funding to study this problem, and how to protect the grid from power instability. One solution proposed is to require all intermittent power sources to be decoupled from the grid, with power provided by battery sources. This is the "low pass filter" common to every commercial electrical power supply.

Utility people doing it don't have a problem, why should anyone else? Try to learn how a grid actually works.
Utilities have been doing variable demand, the same thing as variable supply, for 100 plus yrs. No?
That RE is that variable doesn't understand them or the grid. Fact is with PV it's 30 percent less to build the 24/7 system with storage if you don't hook up to the grid!!
Kind of kills you argument. Another is solar cut US peak demand 3 percent last yr, the most valuable, costly power saving utilities big $.
Again I actually design, build systems and the economics is now I can beat utility prices in most places by fifty percent or more. Nor do those prices rise, in fact save/make more as utility costs rise, no?

Variable demand is not the same problem as intermittency - sudden changes in load or input.

You will have to discuss your insights into the problem with the DOE and the power engineers working on the issue, jerry. The availability of solar energy (or any other kind of electrical energy) has NO impact on the demand for electrical energy, jerry. I think you are misusing the word "demand".

Your post is mostly made up propaganda by FF's, utilities to slow RE from taking over as they will whether you think so or not.

Nor will it be big utility RE as it's they utilities costs on top of generation costs that doom them.

It'll be homes, local co-ops that will rule the energy future, deal with it.

Big energy has priced itself out of the market thus giving very good profit margins to replace FF's, so they will. And utilities are scared to death because they know it's true and already making them shrink in the US despite more, larger homes, buildings and people. EIA utility output report.

Germany is now burning as much coal as it did in 1990,I wonder if any one has told greens and other aspect is it burning a lot nasty black coal with some 7 million tons in 2013 from US alone plus burning of brown coal thats even more poullting,Germany is also building more coal burning and Gen capacity some eight plants,So coal is king and cheap resource for germans once again,Mind with china burning 53% of all global proudction its very hard to beat that.

Germany's reliance on mining and burning coal is a direct consequence of its decision to replace its eight older nuclear power plants that were shut down. The less CO2-intensive, but more expensive gas-fired power plants are currently uncompetitive as they depend on Russian and Norwegian gas. It is Vlad Putin and his gas monopoly Gazprom that largely dictates Germany's reliance on dirty ignite.

Along with the Green Party that opposes exploitation of available NG reserves. Putin is acting rationally, maximizing Russia's profit from its natural resources. It is the response of German politicians that is irrational. Germans need to quit blaming others for these problems.

I have just read and digested your article regarding renewable energy and I find it hard to understand your case for the high cost of renewables.
Consider:
The Sun is free
The Wind is free
Thermal Heat is Free
So the real questions are as follows:
1.How do we drive development and innovation with a fraction of the cost spent on failed Nuclear concepts
2.How do we reduce the cost of delivery from project to the consumer
3. Is you statement re Scandinavian costs being higher really true ( I have asked a leading Swedish Renewables expert to comment later about your statement.
Some of the answers we already know but Governments and Industrialists are not leading they stay with the status quo sometimes out of cowardice, often out of courting public opinion and many times out of profit.
Your article nearly got to one key opportunity and in Germany its outstanding, Go Local>>>>>create local energy schemes with local investment from the community and you begin to build sustainable and secure energy for whole communities. It just needs support and traction from our leaders to highlight the way forward here in the UK.

The sun, wind, and thermal heat are free - but the technologies and infrastructure required to convert them into useful energy, then store and/or transport that energy, are not.

One biodiesel producer put it quite simply: "it is tough for us to compete with oil prices - biodiesel producers can't just stick a straw in the ground, and out comes gillions of gallons of high-energy goop".

The same holds true for any form of energy. The natural gas is buried underground free for the taking. But a significant effort has to be devoted to capturing the natural gas and converting that chemical energy (previously solar energy) into electrical energy.

The difference is in the density of the energy being captured. One day natural gas will be less prevalent and the effective energy densities will cross over. Today we have discovered a method to overcome the lower NG density and still recover the energy at a low cost.

Free, yes, but the equipment used to capture or store the energy isn't free, nor the infrastructure needed to transmit it to where it is used. The cost of people engaged in installation, maintenance and then decommissioning isn't free either.

There is also the cost of capital to take into account, and with wind power in the UK the cost includes a hefty and guaranteed profit.

'The same holds true for any form of energy'.
Precisely, no form of energy is free, none whatsoever, not gas, not coal, not hydro, not solar, not nuclear. If you consider (as we should) all costs associated with exploration and exploitation which includes sinking coal mining shafts, delivering millions of tons to thermal power stations, converting coal into electric energy that again must be transmitted to the consuming industry and or population at large. The same 'cycle' applies to uranium mining, processing, building and operating nuclear power plants AND absorbing the cost of disposal of radioactive waste which presents a danger for generations to come. While hydro power is 'renewable', a great majority of undeveloped (or underdeveloped) hydro sites is in remote locations requiring huge capital expenditures for infrastructure and for power transmission network to industrial users. The alternative of siting huge industrial plants (e.g. aluminum smelting and refining operations) next to hydro stations imposes extra costs on industrial investors. Just think of Canada's huge hydro power sites in Labrador and of Russia's undeveloped sites in the Siberian wilderness. Another 'renewable' source of power is hydrogen but, despite significant technological progress over the past number of decades, the challenges associated with hydrogen storage, transport and distribution and end use require huge investments and significant further improvement.
Again, to repeat: no energy is free and never will be.

Let me rephrase my clumsy sentence:
"A common misconception is that hydrogen is a source of energy. It is a means of storing energy, like a battery or pumped storage, created from a primary source of energy such as coal, solar, wind,...

Starting with the question (Why is renewable energy so expensive?), there are so many factual mistakes in this article that perhaps it would fit better under a "The Economist Misleads" blog.
Why is that? Well, to begin with it would be helpful to specify which renewables you are referring to. Is it wave? Tidal? Hydro? Solar thermal? Solar PV? Onshore wind? Offshore wind? Without this distinction, it would be wrong to pass a judgement on whether the energy source is expensive.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the central scenarios for the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for new-built plants varies from US$497/MWh for marine wave energy to $68/MWh for gas (combined cycle), with solar PV at $123/MWh and onshore wind at $78/MWh. This is before the negative externalities of fossil fuels (risk re price volatility and security of supply; local pollution; global pollution) and the positive externalities of onshore wind (security of supply; no changes to the cost of energy) are considered. Of course, back-up for variable onshore wind should be considered as well, but your sentence unfortunately adds to the general misperception that "renewables are expensive", which holds about as much information as a statement claiming that "hotels are expensive", without specifying where, the quality, and what you compare with.
Supply chain bottlenecks may have been an issue for off-shore wind power, but hardly for on-shore wind. And governments could save themselves the frustration you claim is caused by these bottlenecks by providing a clear, credible, and long-term framework for off-shore wind, rather than tip-toeing and causing investment uncertainty.
Electricity prices in Denmark and Germany are extremely low (before taxes), and electricity prices for industry incl. taxes in these countries below the EU average.
Carbon-leakage is a potential problem, but could, as suggested by The Economist in a proper article, be countered by carbon import duties.
Power generation from wind power is variable - not intermittent. Wind turbines do not produce power only one third of the time, even if capacity factors are one-third (there is a huge difference here).
I think I have made my point and trust that you will move this article to the blog where it belongs: The Economist Misleads.
Kasper Dalsten

...Yes, and it is possible in the gas grid with practically unlimited volumes and storage durations! The existing gas storage is more than a factor 20.000 bigger than all electricity storages together.

The costs of solar generated electricity are extremely low these days. In 2009 the price was more than 5500 Dollars for 1000 W photovoltaic energy. Today you can get 1000W of photovoltaic energy (in Germany) for less than 2000 Dollars. Thats less than halfed in 5 years. And prices are still falling.
I do not find this very expensive.
(source: http://www.photovoltaik-guide.de/pv-preisindex)

Consumers do not buy watts - look at your electrical bill. They buy energy, measured in KWh. Comparing PEAK power outputs from solar panels is a commonly used source of misinformation. In Germany this particularly a problem as panels have only half the energy output per year as the best in the US because of the weather and latitude. That solar panels system (most recent price $2400) will produce only 800 KWh of electricity
per year - worth about $275. Ironically the value is that high because the price of residential electricity has been inflated to pay for commercial renewable energy plants.

Yes - 8 yrs. That is because it permits the installer of solar panels to avoid paying the high renewable energy surcharges that consumers pay on their electrical bills. German industrial corporations pay only a small fraction of the consumer price for their electricity - all of the renewable energy cost is loaded on the consumer. So it makes no sense at all for industries to install solar panels.
Now the German government has to also deal with excess off-peak energy produced by solar and wind. They have tried to sell it to other countries at cut-rate prices, but that is being resisted - nobody needs it. So they are subsidizing technologies to store the energy - subsidized batteries to home owners who would store the energy rather than dumping it on the grid. Meanwhile Germany has undertaken a large plan to build coal-fired plants for a reliable source of electricity.

The long term solution to intermittent renewable energy sources is distributed energy storage. Energy can be purchased when it is abundant and used when needed. Research into, development of and subsidized low cost energy storage should be a priority.

I have read that it may be possible to use the batteries in electric vehicles to sop up excess / draw down later if they are ever in (very) widespread adoption. Most domestic vehicles are not being driven most of the day, for sure - but I'm not sure how practical this really is without dramatic advancements in battery capacity / cost / charge rate.

No, studies suggest solar is more economic than coal once these are accounted for, and the nuclear option relies on credulous and lazy journalists to parrot its "cheaper cost" fantasy that it never delivers in the real world.

In the area I live power companies buy electrical energy from a commercially operated nuclear power plant for 3¢/KWh. The operators claim that this includes a 1¢ mark-up to cover the recovery of capital and the profit. That cost is comparable to the cost of wholesale energy provided by coal-fired plants.

Absurd: those few cents KWh would not cover a truly private operators' marginal costs, let alone actual production costs or total life-cycle costs, so this sounds like PR bunk that you have swallowed whole and thrown back up. Wikipedia's citations of credible independent studies' estimates of true nuclear costs start at 40 cents and range up to double that. That's why big banks have declared new nuke plants in the USA non-starters financially. I cannot refute your unnamed place, but in the known world the many hidden -- and often government-swallowed -- costs of nuclear must be factored in. After that, it is not even in the top five of economically rational energy options. I'm in Ont. Canada, where dim people are fond of blaming a recent solar and wind energy program for current energy costs that are actually nearly wholly due to bad investments sunken into old refurbed nukes that never truly delivered within two bits of the touted life cycle price. Every other place in the West has been busy burying obvious costs out of emotional and scientific-military pride or outright corruption. The industry has never stood on its own economics; and it never will, now that solar matches reasonable estimates of coal costs with health externalities factored in, and gets cheaper every year.

The wholesale prices for electricity from Palo Verde are 3¢/KWh today. That is competitive with coal and NG, but not hydro. Palo Verde is privately owned and a significant source of profit to its owners. It produced 30 TWh of electricity in 2012, seven times the total solar energy generated in the US that year.

You can fabricate a lot of excuses as to why the price is low, but that is what the power companies who sell their electricity to the consumer pay for it. That cost to the consumer is similar to the SURCHARGE we pay on our bill for the excess cost of a small amount of renewable energy.

Coal is being rapidly replaced by natural gas which doesn't have the health concerns associated with coal. Conversion of a coal plant to natural gas costs a small fraction of the cost of a new solar plant, and delivers electricity with a 90% capacity factor, when used as a baseline energy source - almost as good as a nuclear power plant. Solar plants in the desert SW have a 20% capacity factor - they are much worse in Ontario. So the normalized capital cost of solar has to be corrected for the 4.5X difference in capacity factor. It also has to be corrected for the cost of standby fossil plants needed to be available when solar power is not available. Promoters of solar energy ignore these inconvenient truths when they make cost comparisons.

I tried to be clear: if you are going to quote some tiny part of the real price (and the wholesale price is that), you have no credibility. And if you are suggesting that a private firm charge 3cents/KWh and break even, you indulge in the industry-promoted fantasy that breaks down under any scrutiny. First find fully-costed academic sources, then check for bias. An analysis of 30 recent academic papers on the economics of nuclear power screened them for possible conflicts of interest. It found of the 30: 18 had been funded either by the nuclear industry or pro-nuclear governments and were pro-nuclear; 11 were funded by universities or non-profit non-government organisations and were anti-nuclear; and one hid its sponsors and was pro-nuclear. The pro-nukes were all weak. "The pro-nuclear studies were accused of using cost-trimming methods such as ignoring government subsides and using industry projections above empirical evidence wherever possible. The situation was compared to medical research where 98% of industry sponsored studies return positive results." [link below]
The USA has the most skewed petrol-energy accounting of any nation outside the mideast, and it will continue to smoke 'hopium' (subside oil and nukes) at its peril. But even it has reached the end of its nuclear tether. Natural gas seems cheap now, but it suffers from the same over-optimistic, eco-/health costs unaccounted ills as nukes. If you research it properly, it too quickly falls apart as a long term strategy, though it is a decent bridge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Compariso...

All power plants are measured by the cost of the electricity they deliver to the grid. The EIA provides those prices. They are not biased, except possibly pro-solar (they report to the Obama-appointed head of the DOE).

I reviewed your link and found very little to support your views. The costs were all projected costs, based on the construction of a new power plant. Palo Verde is not a new power plant, so the projection of cost from new power plants are irrelevant.

It is apparent that you do not prefer to have the energy we buy to be as cheap as it is. Your arguments in opposition to the low prices are purely rhetorical (" you indulge in the industry-promoted fantasy that breaks down under any scrutiny") with nothing to support your rhetoric except some irrelevant charges of bias and an irrelevant link.

We much prefer the reality of our low electrical prices to your wishes that they should be higher. Sorry about your disappointment, however.

You awkwardly assume that anything I have written suggests that I favor higher power rates. Nothing could be further from the truth or less supported in my comments. This and your other failure to grasp the main point is disturbing, given that you can string together coherent sentences. The main pity is that you missed the point about total costs. I did not say the government body was biased. I said that total lifestyle costs are what matter in energy policy. These must include all subsidies and costed health degradations. Otherwise it is like pricing a meal based on the oven but not the ingredients, or saying the sun is free so solar must be cheaper. After you admit that, you look to the relevant academic studies with care because some deserve to be discounted. And it is ready to tell which. If you don't want to grasp that, even after you read the link, no one can make you do so. But you are no economist.

And you awkwardly claimed I said you favored higher power rates. I said that you were disappointed in our special case to the point that you refuse to even believe it. Nuclear energy cannot possibly provide electricity at 3¢/KWh. The EAI report tells you that it does, and you refuse to believe them.

You claimed I gained my information from biased sources. I point out that the EAI isn't biased. You apparently agree. Ergo, I did not use biased sources, Comprende?

The link you provided did not provide any information relevant to the cost we pay for electricity, unless I missed it. Academic studies should, after all, be consistent with facts. Perhaps you can point out, explicitly, where that is buried in the dissertation on nuclear energy.

I was not citing it to say that you personally got your info from biased sources, though that strikes me as likely. I am saying that the industry misinforms most people about its costs or it would not exist. And specifically, I said the source you used is too partial a costing to be meaningful in this debate of public policy options. I saw it, understood it, and saw how limited it was. I also saw what you thought it meant. But it simply does not prove what you think it proves. I cannot make that any clearer with words alone, so begin to doubt your willingness to confront it squarely. I, in turn, provided a link that did indeed provide the quote and facts that I cited, which should have given you pause at the very least. It is, however, hardly a dissertation: it's just Wikipedia page. (I suggest you use the search-text Ctl-F function on your browser if the relevant heading is not jumping out at you from a page.) And did I indeed misinterpret your remark as suggesting that I favor higher power rates, as you claim? Likely not. It still seems the logical meaning behind your round-house that seemingly aimed for wit yet failed to land: "We much prefer the reality of our low electrical prices to your wishes that they should be higher. Sorry about your disappointment, however." Do tell, if you have the gumption, what else that meant. Or don't -- this has become a tad too Dead Parrot Sketch for my taste.

ALL industries exaggerate their value to society, The nuclear power industry is no different from the solar industry, wind industry, NG, industry or coal industry.

The source I used publishes data. Those were not projections of what might happen in some great day in the future. If you have a specific issue with those number, explain them. All you have posted to date are some vague complaints about it being maybe biased, limited, partial, limited, etc. Sorry, West, but those kinds of vague responses are NOT clear. Your inability to provide any specifics highlights the suspicion that you do not know what you are talking about. I challenged you to provide specifics that you claim was buried in the link you provided and, again, you can not come up with anything. Your answer is "look again, it must be in there somewhere."

The prices of our electricity IS low because of nuclear power - I see it every month on my electric bill. I see, every month, the creeping effect of renewable energy to increase the price. You refuse to accept that. You prefer to believe that we have higher prices. But they ARE low. If we were paying three times what we pay, as Germans do to subsidize renewable energy, then you would prefer to believe we have low prices. Your wish for high prices is specific, for my electric bill. In that case, yes, you wish prices were higher than they are. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

It is obvious that you do not have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about, and a discussion with you is a waste of time

The nuclear (and oil) industries differ from the other industries in the amount spent to sway academics, as well as pols and the public via PR. You would have allowed this had you been paying attention.
My "specific issue with those number [sic]" was already explained -- repeatedly and in no way vaguely. Again, it had nothing to do with bias but with economics and policy decision-making. The source you cited published data yes, but data that did not prove what you thought it did. The prices of nuclear electricity may in cases appear low because of industry-won direct and indirect public subsidy.
The academic studies I cited were /not/ projections of what "might happen in some great day in the future" -- that is just crap you made up because you did not read them -- they were for current full costings. Your inability to skim if not read a single Wikipedia web page from which I quoted specifics is clearly /your/ failing; not mine.
So you cannot admit that no one here gives a fig what power rate you personally pay, as it is irrelevant to a national policy, which must respect full costings. Nor can you even decide whether you want to again lob the bizarrely spurious accusation that I want you to pay a higher rate. That's sad.
In this discussion turned debate (which, you should know, you lost abjectly), saying to yourself soothingly that /I/ don't know what I am talking about is laughable, when you clearly lack even a crude grasp of either policy economics or academic research. Should anyone else read this (which I doubt), they can at this point only pity you for still punching up even as you sink in the miasma of your delusions of competence.

Good book indeed. But it does pre-suppose that the UK has to generate all of its own power (rather than, say, the EU doing so, with or without DESERTEC-like projects), and it ignores potential increases in energy-efficiency.

Of course energy efficiency improvements alone are not nearly enough to reduce GHG emissions by the amount required, but they are not a red herring. They are part of the package, and MacKay ignores it in his book.
.
As to importing power and national security, where do you think the UK gets its energy from now? More than 25% of UK energy is imported (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom). And mostly not from friendly, stable EU countries.

In my country (the USA) if the average consumer saves money on their utility bill, you can almost guarantee they will spend it somewhere else in the economy rather than save. Starbucks, here we come....!

"As to importing power and national security, where do you think the UK gets its energy from now? More than 25% of UK energy is imported"

Yes, good point. Since the UK is already importing 25% of its energy, why now throw the baby out with the bathwater and import 100% from sunny places like Libya, Angola, Egypt, and the Sudan?

BTW, Germany may be willing to sell you some ultra expensive solar power... btw, they have to import energy now that they've shut down all their nuclear power plants..... or better yet, they can just burn more coal to make up the difference..... BTW, now we're pumping more CO2 back into the atmosphere.... but maybe we can sequester it underground with non-existent, super expensive technology that isn't proven yet...

This is all giving me a headache... I believe I will retire to my giant 60" screen TV to play Call of Duty on my new Playstation 4. Cool new products that technological innovation and efficiency have brought to my home. The old gear is in the trash heap. I'm an American and too lazy to recycle.

Never have I heard of such fallacy.
1. On the issue of energy efficiency, would you rather have losses of say for eg. 70% over the life cycle of the product (that consumes the electricity in question) and bear the losses or would you pay say up to 40% of its captial costs and save a hell lot more over its life span? This considering inflation, etc. You decide!
2. DESERTEC may or may not be the best solution for the EU at the moment, given the region's instability, but solar is not the only renewable technology. Look at Scotland making strides in ocean technologies like wave and tidal. The potential in the UK is ginormous.
3. Plese define "we" in "BTW, now we're pumping more CO2 back into the atmosphere.... ". If you do wish to use up all the coal and oil reserves and save nothing for your children and children's children, go ahead, stop investment in all research everywhere altogether!
4. Lastly, your 60" TV is better than the 30" you had a few years ago because of the need to improve energy efficiency. Think about that the next time you play Call of Duty.

1) Valid point from an investment perspective. However, you fail to factor macroeconomic growth into the equation.

2)DESERTEC, and other renewable technologies, such as wave and tidal are a complete joke. Please read a basic engineering text book on the fundamentals of renewable energy.

3) There are plenty of fossil fuel reserves, enough for several hundred years and beyond. I have faith that humanity will eventually find new sources of energy, most likely viable nuclear power (both fission and fusion). Energy transitions require decades rather than years. Global warming is on the rise; there's nothing humanity WILL do to prevent it, other than to adapt to changing conditions. There are just too many people on the planet.

4) The 60" is not so much better than the 30", because the 30" was perfectly fine and did not need to be replaced to begin with. What is the average life-cycle of consumer electronic product? It seems a new iPhone, iPad, or Android comes out every six to 9 months. All this electronic junk eventually ends up in a landfill.. and requires finite natural resources and energy to manufacture, transport, and bring to market. I'm sorry, efficiency gains are neither going to offset rampant consumption, nor economic growth.

Want to limit energy consumption? Slow economic growth in developing nations, and scale back in the OECD. It will never happen voluntarily.

And importing fossil fuels from the Middle East or Russia isn't wrought with national security costs?

Your red herring about energy efficiency also seems a little malodorous as a KW H that is saved by efficiency continues to save into the future, just as a fossil fuel source of generation will continue to pollute into the future.

Energy efficiency will also generate jobs that will tend to be more local than just importing energy from centralized generating facilities. This applies whether the source is renewable or fossil based. However, much of the time fossil fuels are transported long distances before being burned to produce power that again is transported before use.

One point that is frequently ignored is that burning fuels for power produces pollution in all instances, whether it contributes to global warming or just diminishes the health of the local population is usually not figured into the discussion. Perhaps, the acknowledgement that burning stuff for power is inherently detrimental to the health of people is just too big a concept or cost to be thrown into the calculations used to determine the best power sources and usages for the future.

I will preface this by stating I am a firm believer in improving & promoting energy efficiency as a means of improving energy policy. Increased energy efficiency is the low-hanging fruit.

That said, greenm01's point about the unintended consequence of increased energy efficiency leading to economic growth leading to increased overall energy consumption is not entirely without merit.

Basically, one does have to consider unintended consequences.

For instance, I am in the process of installing a tankless water heater (replacing a tank) - all nuances aside, and just accepting that tankless is more efficient than tank water heating (not true in all cases, but, like I said, let's run with it), I am NOT likely to see a lower monthly energy consumption.

Why not?

Because now my wife & daughter will be able to take endless hot showers. (as it is now, with a tank, the hot water runs out, and prompts them to stop).

In reality, my monthly energy consumption is actually likely to go up, due to the installation of a more energy-efficient technology!

(I knew this all along - and is why I have avoided installing a tankless system - but I need to do it for space reasons).

I'm sorry, but I never predicted energy use per capita increasing. My assertion is that total energy use, in all sectors, will continue to increase regardless of efficiency gains. The decrease in energy, per capita, will most likely caused by increases in energy prices and a stabilizing US population. Of course, these energy forecasts are always off the mark the further you project forward, let alone several years. No one can predict future historical events that will disrupt the energy market.

Efficiency is a red herring; the climate/energy problem will not solved by efficiency gains, nor will efficiency decrease total energy use (which is what we really care about); unless of course "we" purposely reverse the course of economic growth. What "we" need is investment in R&D for safe, non-proliferating next generation nuclear power (thorium, fusion, etc..). Yes, invest in renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, etc...), and smart electric distribution networks, but don't fall for the hype that renewable technologies will ever displace fossil fuels within our lifetime, nor your children's lifetime.

As you increase population, the amount of a commodity that the total population uses increases, irrespective of most efforts to conserve the commodity. To most minds, conservation would be measured on a relative basis - each member of the population used less, not more. The arguments you cited claimed that each individual would be encouraged by the results of conservation to use more of the commodity. The data contradicts the theory you cited, despite your personal views on the subject.
The problem with the rebound model is the need for an assumption as to what extent usage is elastic - to what extent usage depends only on cost. There are other factors that affect consumption besides cost.

"The arguments you cited claimed that each individual would be encouraged by the results of conservation to use more of the commodity."

I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect: I never made such a claim in regard to individual energy use.

Who cares if per-capita energy consumption is decreasing, if the world population in 2050 will hit 11 billion people? Efficiency and innovation enable the population to swell. Economic growth leads to increases in total consumption, standard of living, and population.

I'll repeat it again: savings brought about by efficiency are reinvested back into the economy. This contributes to total economic growth, which in turn causes an increase in total energy. Energy efficiency doesn't do enough at the macroeconomic level to rate it high on the list of solutions to the energy problem.